I have been working at a big old architecture firm in Chicago for a little over two years, and it seems that I am quickly approaching the fork in the road where people here choose to either be a "technical" person or a "design" person. This horrifies me, since I strongly value a comprehensive understanding of architecture, and I am very resistent to this type of specialization. However, I understand that, because of the scale of the project we do, some specialization is necessary. My question for you all: Have you found that the places you work encourage a separation of "technical" people and "design" people? Is this more of a large firm phenomenon? Can anyone name any places to work that don't encourage this strict separation?
in my somewhat extensive experience, the pressure to specialize increases with firm size ... smaller firms tend to both value and need the well rounded individual because the volume and nature of their work tends to be less predictable.
with two years of work experience, you should be able to find a place in Chicago (or elsewhere) that is more closely aligned with your own view of your career evolution
Technical vs. Design are not the only forks in the road. In our (large)practice you can specialise as;
Delivery, concept, client, stategic. Often these choices are not available at the beginning as smoozing high profile clients over lunch after a few holes on the golf course is the preserve of a senior position.
ah, yes...i can't remember, do they make you make that choice at D level or at E level?
it is a big firm thing, i work at a small firm (7 people) and i did CDs and a form-z model and talked about metaphysics with my site superintendent on a $15M job all within the space of this week
It may have to do with not only firm size but also whether they specialize in a certain building type. I worked in a 20-25 person firm that was very concerned that people not specialize in one are but rather be involved in a project from start to finish. That firm did all different kinds of work so there was definitely no "set way" to deliver a project. A firm that say only does schools is going to have honed down their work process to an efficient method into which certain people will likely have specific roles.
Becoming a PM is something that hopefully will happen organically, again, if you are in a firm with a variety of project types eventually a smallish one will come along for which the firm will hopefully give you a shot at being PM. Generally before this you will have been involved closely in working with a partner or other PM watching/getting experience at what managing a project really means.
If you like where you work, it is probably worth speaking with your direct supervisor or partner or whoever is appropriate and ask that you not have to "specialize" yet, as you are still trying to get all your IDP areas completed and are still trying to expose yourself to as broad an experience as possible.
In my own experience, the smallish (20 or smaller) firm tended to be a "baptism by fire" expereince that was absolutely invaluable. GOod luck, you sound like you are smart and eager and I appreciate that you want to be wholistic in your approach to architecture.
our firm employs 50-60 people and we still tend to cultivate (and celebrate) generalists, although i'm beginning to see some pressure, and logic, to narrow the scope of some peoples' jobs so we can apply a higher level of expertise to certain tasks.
I worked at a really small firm, and, as we grew, the principal became increasingly reliant on fitting everyone into their slots. I became the dependable production guy and eventually was more or less chained to my desk. It was the beginning of the end for my time there when I had to take Viz off of my machine and reinstall it on another, and was never able to go to construction meetings for a project that was supposed to be a big "learning experience" for me.
Big firm or small firm, it all depends on the person in charge.
I think that a firm's required degree of specialization is definitely something I will ask about at my next job interview, regardless the size of the firm. Thanks for all of your input!
resist the label. dont let some shelf expired 'technical' or 'design-type' arch f or arch g tag you with that name. thats why they never leave skids. after 10 years or so, they realize they dont have the total skills to make it in the real world.
its a bad model.
Mar 28, 06 4:15 am ·
·
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.
Technical vs. Design?
I have been working at a big old architecture firm in Chicago for a little over two years, and it seems that I am quickly approaching the fork in the road where people here choose to either be a "technical" person or a "design" person. This horrifies me, since I strongly value a comprehensive understanding of architecture, and I am very resistent to this type of specialization. However, I understand that, because of the scale of the project we do, some specialization is necessary. My question for you all: Have you found that the places you work encourage a separation of "technical" people and "design" people? Is this more of a large firm phenomenon? Can anyone name any places to work that don't encourage this strict separation?
in my somewhat extensive experience, the pressure to specialize increases with firm size ... smaller firms tend to both value and need the well rounded individual because the volume and nature of their work tends to be less predictable.
with two years of work experience, you should be able to find a place in Chicago (or elsewhere) that is more closely aligned with your own view of your career evolution
Technical vs. Design are not the only forks in the road. In our (large)practice you can specialise as;
Delivery, concept, client, stategic. Often these choices are not available at the beginning as smoozing high profile clients over lunch after a few holes on the golf course is the preserve of a senior position.
ah, yes...i can't remember, do they make you make that choice at D level or at E level?
it is a big firm thing, i work at a small firm (7 people) and i did CDs and a form-z model and talked about metaphysics with my site superintendent on a $15M job all within the space of this week
Thanks for the input everyone... I wish I knew at which size firm this specialation starts to fade away. Is it 50 people? 25? 10?
I forgot to mention the project managers! I'm not sure when people start down that path, since most of our PMs are 50+ years old.
PM's at my office are much younger than that. I work at a medium office, which is part of a large corporate firm.
It may have to do with not only firm size but also whether they specialize in a certain building type. I worked in a 20-25 person firm that was very concerned that people not specialize in one are but rather be involved in a project from start to finish. That firm did all different kinds of work so there was definitely no "set way" to deliver a project. A firm that say only does schools is going to have honed down their work process to an efficient method into which certain people will likely have specific roles.
Becoming a PM is something that hopefully will happen organically, again, if you are in a firm with a variety of project types eventually a smallish one will come along for which the firm will hopefully give you a shot at being PM. Generally before this you will have been involved closely in working with a partner or other PM watching/getting experience at what managing a project really means.
If you like where you work, it is probably worth speaking with your direct supervisor or partner or whoever is appropriate and ask that you not have to "specialize" yet, as you are still trying to get all your IDP areas completed and are still trying to expose yourself to as broad an experience as possible.
In my own experience, the smallish (20 or smaller) firm tended to be a "baptism by fire" expereince that was absolutely invaluable. GOod luck, you sound like you are smart and eager and I appreciate that you want to be wholistic in your approach to architecture.
our firm employs 50-60 people and we still tend to cultivate (and celebrate) generalists, although i'm beginning to see some pressure, and logic, to narrow the scope of some peoples' jobs so we can apply a higher level of expertise to certain tasks.
I worked at a really small firm, and, as we grew, the principal became increasingly reliant on fitting everyone into their slots. I became the dependable production guy and eventually was more or less chained to my desk. It was the beginning of the end for my time there when I had to take Viz off of my machine and reinstall it on another, and was never able to go to construction meetings for a project that was supposed to be a big "learning experience" for me.
Big firm or small firm, it all depends on the person in charge.
I think that a firm's required degree of specialization is definitely something I will ask about at my next job interview, regardless the size of the firm. Thanks for all of your input!
hmmm, som chicago i presume?
resist the label. dont let some shelf expired 'technical' or 'design-type' arch f or arch g tag you with that name. thats why they never leave skids. after 10 years or so, they realize they dont have the total skills to make it in the real world.
its a bad model.
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.